There are numerous reason crowdsourcing is bad – in fact I’d actually say it’s unethical, that those participating in it are participating in the sincerest form of thievery. Here are my top five reasons.

1. Crowdsourcing gives ownership to the Crowdsourcer

Many of my comparisons of what’s wrong with crowdsourcing are compared to opensourcing. They are distinct. Don’t be confused. Participating in a crowdsourcing community is like playing the lottery, hoping for a chance at fame with little or no benefit in return. Participating in an opensource project may not provide the fame, but you’re reap rewards in the fact that it’s open, you own it – just like I own a part of WordPress as a user of WordPress. Read the definition of crowdsourcing. Think of the examples of crowdsourced projects. Participants in crowdsourcing are gambling on being chosen, with the successful project delivered free (believe me, do the math – it’s always free) to the sourcer without any consideration.

2. Participants Are Asked to Gamble

A crowdsourced project is offered to a community as a chance to gain monetary exchange, to obtain recognition, or to participate in a fun adventure. The proponents of this practice claim no one feels taken advantage of by, so it’s therefore right. Nothing is further from the truth. The ignorant participate. Those that see crowdsource for what it is, shake their heads and stand on the sidelines. That doesn’t mean the ignorant aren’t being scammed. Believe me, if any of these participants knew that a corporation would likely pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to change their brand, would they hand over a logo for free? Participants don’t understand the true value of what they’re being asked to deliver, so they deliver in hopes of false promise. This is the same argument that is made against gambling and lotteries – the less fortunate are the most significantly taken advantage of, not because they are stupid, but because the promise of false payoff is most appealing.

3. Benefits go to the Most Fortunate

One of the biggest ethical issues with crowdsourcing is who benefits. Opensource benefits those that do not have money. Think of Linux – and how it allows third-world countries access to technology because they don’t have to pay Microsoft. Crowdsourcing benefits only the big name corporations, celebrities and providers of fame, because, let’s be honest, the real motivation is face-fame and the chance for your fifteen minutes. But the truth is, you’re not going to be famous – any more than your going to be famous for buying a PowerBall ticket. In fact, by participating in a crowdsource, you’re basically proclaiming, “hey, what is do has no value, so I’ll give it away for free.” We have a problem giving a hand out to panhandlers – why would we want to give value against odds akin to lottery winning, just for the pat on the back, and maybe a small monetary payment?

4. Devalues the Worth of the Product or Services

This follows number 3 and continues an examination of service or product value. Designers carry a large share of the blame for this. By equating what appears to be easy with worth, they’ll often use the response, “Oh, that’s easy” to answer a request. Easy translates as cheap, but it disguises the fact that for it to be easy for you, a designer, it was hard getting to that point. If it were truly easy, they wouldn’t be asking you for the service. But now you’ve revealed the term easy to the customer, and you’re stuck with a product perceived as both easy and cheap.

Imagine asking Picasso to draw you a sketch. It would be very easy. He could draw in less than 30 seconds a drawing that would warrant being in a museum. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. If he were still around, it’d be easy to understand it took the decades of practice as an artist to make it seem effortless. And I’d be surprised if you convince him to give that drawing to you because it was easy.

The problem with crowdsourcing is that it disguises the value of the product in the mass. Yes, coming up with a basic idea is somewhat easy – especially for a logo. You might spend two to three hours as an experienced designer putting together an idea. Two hours at a respectable studio rate of $100 hour means your only out $200-$300 for a chance to get, say, The Gap’s business. From The Gap’s perspective, they get say, 1000 ideas from similar designers, and they chose which one to go with. They’ve now received 3000 potential hours of human labor for free, for the chance to hopefully pick their best-perceived option. Are they going to pay back to the community the $300,000 for the ideas generated? I highly doubt it. They might pay a fraction of this cost – say the $300 that it cost the one individual that won. But what about the 999 that didn’t win, the $299,700 that they didn’t have to spend for the equivalent output.

Now The Gap has the impression that to create a logo is really a cost of say, a few hundred bucks, versus even $50,000 they might pay a design agency.

Even as I write this, the numbers are disgusting.

5. Cheats the Crowdsourcer

After all my positioning of the Crowdsourcer as the bad guy – the truth is this practice probably harms them the most. Because they’re often multi-million dollar corporations, or celebrities, they have a brand reputation that doesn’t necessarily benefit from the easily exposed anti-ethical behavior crowdsourcing justifies. Just look at the backlash against The Gap. Consider the damage suffered by Nike when claims of sweat shops and child labor surface. There’s nothing that says a crowdsourced project isn’t being done by under aged kids looking for a chance to make it big. They have the least to lose – or so they think. But it’s exploitation. Don’t argue otherwise.

And unfortunately the client doesn’t even get what they want  – which is truly a powerful brand that resonates with customers and translates to a strong bottom line. Or in the case of celebrity – a fan base that continues to support their career.

Are there cases where Crowdsourcing is good?

This is a closing question – and my answer is, possibly.

I think on a small scale, one that’s compensated, the chance to leverage the ideas and inspiration of a crowd has merits. For example, opening up a logo design contest within a company, where all employees are already being paid, and asking for ideas could be a way to increase moral. The key here is that all are compensated. Employees opening this up to their own kid starts create an ethical leak that unless it’s compensated, makes this argument lose weight. And for most companies, the number of employees participating would hardly warrant a crowd.

Some would argue that non-profits would benefit, however non-profits already benefit from well-meaning, pro-bono work by professional design practitioners. And pro-bono work really should only be done by those with the means to donate their time, not as exploitation disguised as experience gaining opportunities.

Another perspective on the potential benefits of crowdsourcing are on the participants and the community. I think I’ve already addressed how 99% of the community is often without any compensation. And unlike an open source software project, where the community benefits as a whole by being able to use a product, participants of crowdsourcing do not get the benefit of the product – other than recognition. And believe me, if you’re being compensated only by the promise of recognition, it often means your going to get ripped off.

I’m sure there are those that will defend crowdsourcing as a great development from social media. It does not compare to the power of open-source. The community is ripped. The crowdsourcer owns the property, perceives what they own as less value than it truly is, and doesn’t really understand the exposure and risk they face by participating in unethical practices.

I’m working my way through the the eBook ($19) and I’m not nearly through, but I thought I’d give the book an un-sponsored shout out. And for those that might be turned off by the manifesto bit (I usually am so I understand), this is more a rallying cry to yourself to understand your competitive position int he market, whether you’re running the ship, or you’re a deckhand. You need to understand your own unique strengths, give up on trying to be everything, and position yourself in the best competitive position you can.

For those interested,  you can read The Win Without Pitching Manifesto online for free.

[UPDATE 08-05-2010] I did manage to finish this book – a rarity for me but also a testament to the quality of thinking. I have only a few comments after finishing. First, I felt that many points could easily be applied to an individuals career as much as a design firm. As a web designer, you’re only as good as your ability to be knowledgeable, insightful and creative. You’re paid a premium based on your ideas, concepts. No one pays a premium for what can be done fast. And if you find that’s what you’re spending most of your time doing…well beware, there software being developed that can do it faster.

Another thing I feel an individual can take from this book is the focus on your portfolio. Your work should inspire. It should make the person want to hire you, not because they think you’re expecting to do this sort of stuff every day (there’s always bread and butter projects) but they want to think that you can. Be very pretentious about your portfolio.

I do have an issue with the doctor-patient analogy often used by high-design evangelists. I didn’t go to school to be a doctor. Design is important. Some design even life-saving important  (i.e. the exit sign). But most of us expect that there will be some client interaction, that clients can have good ideas, that in fact a client can be a designer. You’ve been hired more as a guide, an inspiring guide that will lead the way…astonish, amaze, and listen. Doctor’s don’t always listen. Good designers listen. And the design industry will benefit from leaving the doctor comparison behind.